Would a race blind system allow those qualified blacks a chance to reasonably compete for the slots at the school or would the odds dictate that they would be shut out?

What is worse, allowing race to be one factor and perhaps allowing a few people with somewhat lower numerical qualifications that may be explained by good reasons or forcing an entire group to be over-qualified (near 75%) to be able to reasonably compete for a spot in schools?

Race should NOT matter. Qualified is qualified. Enough said.

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. End/thread.

TITCR. Dude refuses to open his mind to the ideas being thrown at him. He refuses to believe that things, pardon the pun, aren't so black and white. WE DON'T LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE QUALIFIED IS QUALIFIED- RACISM HAS DICTATED SUCH.

Erwin, your posts have been much appreciated.

This is a really interesting thread. But it's not quite as simple as it's being made out to be on here. Maybe it's because its being typed. I hope thats why.

But for all of the legitimacy that many posters in favor of AA have here, many are essentially calling the opposition blind or ignorant while ignoring their own short-sightedness. And that is sad.

BTW, I disagree with this last post for a bunch of different reasons; namely, racism is not the only cause of global inequality.

But it could it also be that this guy has grown up not thinking along racial lines, only to have it thrust upon him later in his life? He appreciate where he comes from, and quite frankly, I think that so much of the black, hispanic, and other ethnic minority leaders bring it down upon ourselves by reminding generation after generation of kids that they are different, that they are and will be judged by the color of their skin, and to never forget that fact. That leads to suspicion of people who think that AA is bad and causes them to be ridiculed for their ignorance or intolerence. And that is just sickening.

I proposed a simple hypo with conditions to see where the OP was grounded on racial issues. Safe to say he's delusional.

Wow, just caught up with this thread since my original post on page one. Apparently I am the only person who needed to catch up on schoolwork from a lazy weekend filled with Sopranos, Entourage, and NBA playoffs. Anywho, there was a person saying "how far can a society come in 50 years?" I think our society has unquestionable come leaps and bounds in the past 43 years since Brown v Board of Education and in the past 33 years since the ruling actually became integrated. That said, we have a ways to go. I think some people here are using extreme examples in attempt to prove their stubborn points. Should a person be judged solely on their race? No. They should be judged on the quality of their character which is, in certain instances, spurred by the color of their skin. Race does play a role in how some people are brought up. However, on that same note, so do many, many other circumstances that are not captured on a checkbox located on the front page of most applications. Personally, I am a poor white kid that used athletic skills to earn a scholarship and used my grades from college and a good GMAT score to get in to a Master's program, which I paid for from internship money. I say this because there is no box that you can check on the first page of an application saying "Are you poor? [ ] Yes, [ ] No"... If you want to speak about something that has played a role in your upbringing, you can do so in your PS or in a Diversity Statement. We have all had the appropriate undergraduate time to show what we can do in a collegiate environment. Our actual college coursework should speak be able to speak for itself.

As potential legal students, we should look for potential problems that may arise when rulings are made. For instance, if we allow race to be indicated on the application, what else should we include? Should you be required to check your sexual orientation? How do we know that applicants are not being discriminated or advantaged based on this? Should you be required to check your socio-economic status as well? If so, will economically disadvantaged white students begin taking URMs places in classes? If not, will the progression and eventual (hopefully) leveling of status between the races produce instances where a wealthy, third-generation Ivy-Leaguer is admitted to a school with lower scores and less experience than a poor white student with a more solid application?

I may not be successful in my attempts to stay on the outside and provide thoughtful comments, and if I have voiced some undermining or blinded opinion it was not my intention. Where I grew up, I was not treated well because I was white and I was not safe walking home from school because my classmates were scared of a white kid. I was treated well because I could ball and I was safe walking home from school because I was fast, strong, and a good athlete. As an athlete, you tend to look past race since you're lining up with maybe 3 or 4 races on your side of the ball at any given time. You see people for what they bring to the table. I played with guys who busted their ass to earn our championships and one who died during conditioning because he was going so hard. When you see someone laying on the field, you don't see a black or a white guy, you see a teammate and a fellow human being. Perhaps sports don't teach every life lesson, but growing up where I grew up and playing on teams with all different races teaches you a lot about race relations and looking past color of skin to what your teammate brings to the table in talent. Don't know if this helps, but I tried to blend a message in there. The end.

perhaps your ancestors should have been more industrious during slavery, or your ancestors descendents should have been less prodigal. Or maybe they should have accomplished more in whatever country they immigrated from. At any rate, your lot as an average white person is not the result of 400 years of institutionalized keep-a-n-word-down type *&^%.

perhaps your ancestors should have been more industrious during slavery, or your ancestors descendents should have been less prodigal. Or maybe they should have accomplished more in whatever country they immigrated from. At any rate, your lot as an average white person is not the result of 400 years of institutionalized keep-a-n-word-down type sh*t.

Madness, I'm trying to figure out if you're a racist white kid, a racist black kid, or just some jackass who likes to start sh*t. Regardless it's pathetic argument that speaks volumes about its poster.

I'm a racist black guy who is also a jack ass that likes to start sh*t. As for my argument, do you think OP came here looking to logically discuss issues?

Who you choose to confront in this thread, and who you've let slide in this thread, and your comments towards both, speaks volumes about you as well. No wondering with me. I already have you figured out - since passing judgement is apparently what we are doing here.

Wow, just caught up with this thread since my original post on page one. Apparently I am the only person who needed to catch up on schoolwork from a lazy weekend filled with Sopranos, Entourage, and NBA playoffs. Anywho, there was a person saying "how far can a society come in 50 years?" I think our society has unquestionable come leaps and bounds in the past 43 years since Brown v Board of Education and in the past 33 years since the ruling actually became integrated. That said, we have a ways to go. I think some people here are using extreme examples in attempt to prove their stubborn points. Should a person be judged solely on their race? No. They should be judged on the quality of their character which is, in certain instances, spurred by the color of their skin. Race does play a role in how some people are brought up. However, on that same note, so do many, many other circumstances that are not captured on a checkbox located on the front page of most applications. Personally, I am a poor white kid that used athletic skills to earn a scholarship and used my grades from college and a good GMAT score to get in to a Master's program, which I paid for from internship money. I say this because there is no box that you can check on the first page of an application saying "Are you poor? [ ] Yes, [ ] No"... If you want to speak about something that has played a role in your upbringing, you can do so in your PS or in a Diversity Statement. We have all had the appropriate undergraduate time to show what we can do in a collegiate environment. Our actual college coursework should speak be able to speak for itself.

As potential legal students, we should look for potential problems that may arise when rulings are made. For instance, if we allow race to be indicated on the application, what else should we include? Should you be required to check your sexual orientation? How do we know that applicants are not being discriminated or advantaged based on this? Should you be required to check your socio-economic status as well? If so, will economically disadvantaged white students begin taking URMs places in classes? If not, will the progression and eventual (hopefully) leveling of status between the races produce instances where a wealthy, third-generation Ivy-Leaguer is admitted to a school with lower scores and less experience than a poor white student with a more solid application?

I may not be successful in my attempts to stay on the outside and provide thoughtful comments, and if I have voiced some undermining or blinded opinion it was not my intention. Where I grew up, I was not treated well because I was white and I was not safe walking home from school because my classmates were scared of a white kid. I was treated well because I could ball and I was safe walking home from school because I was fast, strong, and a good athlete. As an athlete, you tend to look past race since you're lining up with maybe 3 or 4 races on your side of the ball at any given time. You see people for what they bring to the table. I played with guys who busted their ass to earn our championships and one who died during conditioning because he was going so hard. When you see someone laying on the field, you don't see a black or a white guy, you see a teammate and a fellow human being. Perhaps sports don't teach every life lesson, but growing up where I grew up and playing on teams with all different races teaches you a lot about race relations and looking past color of skin to what your teammate brings to the table in talent. Don't know if this helps, but I tried to blend a message in there. The end.

Well said, Will Hunting. I think you've captured my point, particulary with the checkboxes on law school applications. There are many other ways people can be disadvantaged besides race, but these people do not get a checkbox. To even the playing field, these checkboxes should be eliminated and the applicant should discuss these setbacks in his or her personal statement.

Wow, just caught up with this thread since my original post on page one. Apparently I am the only person who needed to catch up on schoolwork from a lazy weekend filled with Sopranos, Entourage, and NBA playoffs. Anywho, there was a person saying "how far can a society come in 50 years?" I think our society has unquestionable come leaps and bounds in the past 43 years since Brown v Board of Education and in the past 33 years since the ruling actually became integrated. That said, we have a ways to go. I think some people here are using extreme examples in attempt to prove their stubborn points. Should a person be judged solely on their race? No. They should be judged on the quality of their character which is, in certain instances, spurred by the color of their skin. Race does play a role in how some people are brought up. However, on that same note, so do many, many other circumstances that are not captured on a checkbox located on the front page of most applications. Personally, I am a poor white kid that used athletic skills to earn a scholarship and used my grades from college and a good GMAT score to get in to a Master's program, which I paid for from internship money. I say this because there is no box that you can check on the first page of an application saying "Are you poor? [ ] Yes, [ ] No"... If you want to speak about something that has played a role in your upbringing, you can do so in your PS or in a Diversity Statement. We have all had the appropriate undergraduate time to show what we can do in a collegiate environment. Our actual college coursework should speak be able to speak for itself.

As potential legal students, we should look for potential problems that may arise when rulings are made. For instance, if we allow race to be indicated on the application, what else should we include? Should you be required to check your sexual orientation? How do we know that applicants are not being discriminated or advantaged based on this? Should you be required to check your socio-economic status as well? If so, will economically disadvantaged white students begin taking URMs places in classes? If not, will the progression and eventual (hopefully) leveling of status between the races produce instances where a wealthy, third-generation Ivy-Leaguer is admitted to a school with lower scores and less experience than a poor white student with a more solid application?

I may not be successful in my attempts to stay on the outside and provide thoughtful comments, and if I have voiced some undermining or blinded opinion it was not my intention. Where I grew up, I was not treated well because I was white and I was not safe walking home from school because my classmates were scared of a white kid. I was treated well because I could ball and I was safe walking home from school because I was fast, strong, and a good athlete. As an athlete, you tend to look past race since you're lining up with maybe 3 or 4 races on your side of the ball at any given time. You see people for what they bring to the table. I played with guys who busted their ass to earn our championships and one who died during conditioning because he was going so hard. When you see someone laying on the field, you don't see a black or a white guy, you see a teammate and a fellow human being. Perhaps sports don't teach every life lesson, but growing up where I grew up and playing on teams with all different races teaches you a lot about race relations and looking past color of skin to what your teammate brings to the table in talent. Don't know if this helps, but I tried to blend a message in there. The end.

Well said, Will Hunting. I think you've captured my point, particulary with the checkboxes on law school applications. There are many other ways people can be disadvantaged besides race, but these people do not get a checkbox. To even the playing field, these checkboxes should be eliminated and the applicant should discuss these setbacks in his or her personal statement.

Agreed. I agree with getting rid of the checkboxes. Its a dumb idea (aside from institutional reporting). Still, I'm not sure eliminating the boxes in favor of PS will change the system. I'm not sure pre-1Ls understand (and many law students) how affirmative action works.

mentioning race in PS seems like 6 in one hand half dozen in another to me. Only now to be considered for something which has obviously affected you you will have to waste your ps and diversity statement on doing so.

and its not just about college coursework, if it was I could agree with doing away with race having anything at all to do with admissions.

But Madness, don't you agree that minorities are not the only ones who have experience setbacks in their lives? What about LGBT people? What about women? Athiests? The poor? The disabled? None of these people get a checkbox and are only left with the option of discussing it in a PS.